Analysis of Protein Biomarkers From Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Reveals Severity-Specific Signatures and Two Distinct Latent Profiles With Differential Responses to Corticosteroids

Utility of Protein Markers in COVID-19 Patients

COVID-19 has been a challenge at the healthcare level not only in the early stages of the pandemic, but also in the subsequent appearance of long-term COVID-19. Several investigations have attempted to identify proteomic biomarkers in an attempt to improve clinical care, guide treatment and predict possible patient outcomes. Proteins such as C-reactive protein (CRP) or interleukin 6 (IL-6) are clear markers of severe disease, but many others have been proposed that could help in risk stratification and in the prediction of specific complications. This review aims to bring together the most relevant studies in this regard, providing information to identify the most notable biomarkers in relation to COVID-19 found to date.

Distinct immune profiles and clinical outcomes in sepsis subphenotypes based on temperature trajectories

PURPOSE

Sepsis is a heterogeneous syndrome. Identification of sepsis subphenotypes with distinct immune profiles could lead to targeted therapies. This study investigates the immune profiles of patients with sepsis following distinct body temperature patterns (i.e., temperature trajectory subphenotypes).

METHODS

Hospitalized patients from four hospitals between 2018 and 2022 with suspicion of infection were included. A previously validated temperature trajectory algorithm was used to classify study patients into temperature trajectory subphenotypes. Microbiological profiles, clinical outcomes, and levels of 31 biomarkers were compared between these subphenotypes.

RESULTS

The 3576 study patients were classified into four temperature trajectory subphenotypes: hyperthermic slow resolvers (N = 563, 16%), hyperthermic fast resolvers (N = 805, 23%), normothermic (N = 1693, 47%), hypothermic (N = 515, 14%). The mortality rate was significantly different between subphenotypes, with the highest rate in hypothermics (14.2%), followed by hyperthermic slow resolvers 6%, normothermic 5.5%, and lowest in hyperthermic fast resolvers 3.6% (p < 0.001). After multiple testing correction for the 31 biomarkers tested, 20 biomarkers remained significantly different between temperature trajectories: angiopoietin-1 (Ang-1), C-reactive protein (CRP), feline McDonough sarcoma-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt-3l), granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), interleukin (IL)-15, IL-1 receptor antagonist (RA), IL-2, IL-6, IL-7, interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (IP-10), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), human macrophage inflammatory protein 3 alpha (MIP-3a), neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), pentraxin-3, thrombomodulin, tissue factor, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (sTREM-1), and vascular cellular adhesion molecule-1 (vCAM-1).The hyperthermic fast and slow resolvers had the highest levels of most pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Hypothermics had suppressed levels of most cytokines but the highest levels of several coagulation markers (Ang-1, thrombomodulin, tissue factor).

CONCLUSION

Sepsis subphenotypes identified using the universally available measurement of body temperature had distinct immune profiles. Hypothermic patients, who had the highest mortality rate, also had the lowest levels of most pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines.

A Roadmap for Using Causal Inference and Machine Learning to Personalize Asthma Medication Selection

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is a mainstay treatment for controlling asthma and preventing exacerbations in patients with persistent asthma. Many types of ICS drugs are used, either alone or in combination with other controller medications. Despite the widespread use of ICSs, asthma control remains suboptimal in many people with asthma. Suboptimal control leads to recurrent exacerbations, causes frequent ER visits and inpatient stays, and is due to multiple factors. One such factor is the inappropriate ICS choice for the patient. While many interventions targeting other factors exist, less attention is given to inappropriate ICS choice. Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with variable underlying inflammations and biomarkers. Up to 50% of people with asthma exhibit some degree of resistance or insensitivity to certain ICSs due to genetic variations in ICS metabolizing enzymes, leading to variable responses to ICSs. Yet, ICS choice, especially in the primary care setting, is often not tailored to the patient's characteristics. Instead, ICS choice is largely by trial and error and often dictated by insurance reimbursement, organizational prescribing policies, or cost, leading to a one-size-fits-all approach with many patients not achieving optimal control. There is a pressing need for a decision support tool that can predict an effective ICS at the point of care and guide providers to select the ICS that will most likely and quickly ease patient symptoms and improve asthma control. To date, no such tool exists. Predicting which patient will respond well to which ICS is the first step toward developing such a tool. However, no study has predicted ICS response, forming a gap. While the biologic heterogeneity of asthma is vast, few, if any, biomarkers and genotypes can be used to systematically profile all patients with asthma and predict ICS response. As endotyping or genotyping all patients is infeasible, readily available electronic health record data collected during clinical care offer a low-cost, reliable, and more holistic way to profile all patients. In this paper, we point out the need for developing a decision support tool to guide ICS selection and the gap in fulfilling the need. Then we outline an approach to close this gap via creating a machine learning model and applying causal inference to predict a patient's ICS response in the next year based on the patient's characteristics. The model uses electronic health record data to characterize all patients and extract patterns that could mirror endotype or genotype. This paper supplies a roadmap for future research, with the eventual goal of shifting asthma care from one-size-fits-all to personalized care, improve outcomes, and save health care resources.

Clustering COVID-19 ARDS patients through the first days of ICU admission. An analysis of the CIBERESUCICOVID Cohort

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) can be classified into sub-phenotypes according to different inflammatory/clinical status. Prognostic enrichment was achieved by grouping patients into hypoinflammatory or hyperinflammatory sub-phenotypes, even though the time of analysis may change the classification according to treatment response or disease evolution. We aimed to evaluate when patients can be clustered in more than 1 group, and how they may change the clustering of patients using data of baseline or day 3, and the prognosis of patients according to their evolution by changing or not the cluster.

METHODS

Multicenter, observational prospective, and retrospective study of patients admitted due to ARDS related to COVID-19 infection in Spain. Patients were grouped according to a clustering mixed-type data algorithm (k-prototypes) using continuous and categorical readily available variables at baseline and day 3.

RESULTS

Of 6205 patients, 3743 (60%) were included in the study. According to silhouette analysis, patients were grouped in two clusters. At baseline, 1402 (37%) patients were included in cluster 1 and 2341(63%) in cluster 2. On day 3, 1557(42%) patients were included in cluster 1 and 2086 (57%) in cluster 2. The patients included in cluster 2 were older and more frequently hypertensive and had a higher prevalence of shock, organ dysfunction, inflammatory biomarkers, and worst respiratory indexes at both time points. The 90-day mortality was higher in cluster 2 at both clustering processes (43.8% [n = 1025] versus 27.3% [n = 383] at baseline, and 49% [n = 1023] versus 20.6% [n = 321] on day 3). Four hundred and fifty-eight (33%) patients clustered in the first group were clustered in the second group on day 3. In contrast, 638 (27%) patients clustered in the second group were clustered in the first group on day 3.

CONCLUSIONS

During the first days, patients can be clustered into two groups and the process of clustering patients may change as they continue to evolve. This means that despite a vast majority of patients remaining in the same cluster, a minority reaching 33% of patients analyzed may be re-categorized into different clusters based on their progress. Such changes can significantly impact their prognosis.

Novel subtypes of severe COVID-19 respiratory failure based on biological heterogeneity: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence associating inflammatory biomarkers with worse outcomes in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, trials of immunomodulatory therapies have met with mixed results, likely due in part to biological heterogeneity of participants. Latent class analysis (LCA) of clinical and protein biomarker data has identified two subtypes of non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with different clinical outcomes and treatment responses. We studied biological heterogeneity and clinical outcomes in a multi-institutional platform randomized controlled trial of adults with severe COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure (I-SPY COVID).

METHODS

Clinical and plasma protein biomarker data were analyzed from 400 trial participants enrolled from September 2020 until October 2021 with severe COVID-19 requiring ≥ 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Seventeen hypothesis-directed protein biomarkers were measured at enrollment using multiplex Luminex panels or single analyte enzyme linked immunoassay methods (ELISA). Biomarkers and clinical variables were used to test for latent subtypes and longitudinal biomarker changes by subtype were explored. A validated parsimonious model using interleukin-8, bicarbonate, and protein C was used for comparison with non-COVID hyper- and hypo-inflammatory ARDS subtypes.

RESULTS

Average participant age was 60 ± 14 years; 67% were male, and 28-day mortality was 25%. At trial enrollment, 85% of participants required high flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, and 97% were receiving dexamethasone. Several biomarkers of inflammation (IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, sTNFR-1, TREM-1), epithelial injury (sRAGE), and endothelial injury (Ang-1, thrombomodulin) were associated with 28- and 60-day mortality. Two latent subtypes were identified. Subtype 2 (27% of participants) was characterized by persistent derangements in biomarkers of inflammation, endothelial and epithelial injury, and disordered coagulation and had twice the mortality rate compared with Subtype 1. Only one person was classified as hyper-inflammatory using the previously validated non-COVID ARDS model.

CONCLUSIONS

We discovered evidence of two novel biological subtypes of severe COVID-19 with significantly different clinical outcomes. These subtypes differed from previously established hyper- and hypo-inflammatory non-COVID subtypes of ARDS. Biological heterogeneity may explain inconsistent findings from trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and guide treatment approaches.